Question 1: Do you think we should maintain the current
provisions?

Analysis

Of the 85 respondents, 49 believed that the current
provisions were sufficient.

The general consensus amongst those in favour of maintaining
the current provisions was they are simple to understand and
apply. It was felt that the current provisions provide robust
enough checks and balances with the risks of an unsuitable person
being in regulated work very low.

A number of respondents felt that a change in the legislation
would result in an increased burden and cost to employers with
very little benefit.

Volunteer Scotland Disclosure Services sought feedback from
over 4000 organisations that are enrolled with them. Only one
response they received favoured changing the current provisions
for employer offences.

Youth Link Scotland also agreed that the current provisions
should be maintained. They stated: "that the current situation of
organisations voluntarily carrying out retrospective checks on
current employees/volunteers is adequate. That the burden of
responsibility should continue, as is set out in the 2010
regulations, to be a shared responsibility between Disclosure
Scotland and the organisation." A number of respondents also
stated that with retrospective checking ending, everyone in
regulated work should now have been
PVG
checked. A number also felt that the
PVG
Scheme post retrospective checking should be allowed to function
for a time to allow a more mature assessment of how it is working
and whether changes are required.

The respondent from
NHS Education
for Scotland said: "Having consulted with other
HR professionals
across the
NHS it is my
opinion that the 2010 Regulations remain fit for purpose with
specific regard to patient safety, and do not require any further
changes to the law."

North Ayrshire Council suggested maintaining current
provisions but that: "these should be further supported by the
employer signing a declaration confirming that all employees who
were in post prior to the new regulations being introduced on the
28th February 2011 have now had a retrospective check carried out
and if required barred employees contracts have been
terminated."

Aberdeen City Council also favoured the retention of the
current provisions. The Council noted that greater clarity over
whether or not some roles were covered by the
PVG
Scheme would assist the effective function of the current
provisions. Two respondents, who favoured the current position
and who wished to remain anonymous, said that the uncertainty
over whether certain jobs were covered by
PVG
Scheme membership acted as a barrier to effective public
protection. That uncertainty could lead to an offence being
committed unintentionally if the organisation had reached the
wrong conclusion about the role not being covered by the
PVG
Scheme.

The 33 respondents that did not agree with maintaining the
current provisions considered that new provisions would offer
greater protection to vulnerable groups by encouraging all
organisations offering regulated work to ensure their staff had
been
PVG
checked. There was a concern that the current provisions may
result in a barred individual continuing to work with vulnerable
groups.

One respondent who wanted to remain anonymous stated that the
current provisions should not be maintained as the current
requirement that Disclosure Scotland has notified an organisation
that an individual has been barred is 'too restrictive'.

The
BMA also
stated that "the scheme in its current form is often found to be
hugely bureaucratic and onerous for both the employee and
employer." They wanted to see a simpler more transparent
system.